UK - the islanders may be British imports, but those isles are now their home

I'm with the USA - officially neutral

Nothing more than a straw poll here. Those of you outside of South America or the UK might not be getting this story, but Argentina is taking its case for sovereignty over the disputed Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas to the UN. At a recent "everyone except the US and Canada" summit of American nations all 32 members present backed the Argentine side of the debate.

The dispute, which has been going on for a couple of centuries or so, has been brought back to the agenda after a number of oil companies were granted exploration rights by the islands' legistature in Port Stanley (Puerto Argentine).

So, bearing in mind the history, do you think that the islands should "revert" back to Argentina who never really had a permanent settlement on them anyway, or remain a hangover of a long-gone colonial past and stay with the 14000km away UK?

Argentina's argument is that the 3000 or so residents shouldn't really be there anyway, since they were moved there as a British colonisation effort in the 1840s after Argentina claimed the islands as its own. Britain of course counters this argument by pointing to a plaque that one of its ships left on West Falkland several decades prior to Argentina's independence from Spain, claiming the islands for Britain.

It's more than just about the islands themselves. Due to international law whoever controls them and the "dependent territories"* of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands has the resource rights to huge swathes of the South Atlantic. Even without the oil possibility that represents a massive amount of cash.

*South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are currently uninhabited, meaning the UK cannot legally enforce maritime restrictions.

I don't really know what's right or wrong here. I feel for the islanders but who is to say they wouldn't be drilling for oil there themselves if they'd known or had the ability. It's still a part of the British empire so I'm guessing it's legally Britain's to pillage, rightly or wrongly. I admit I don't know all that much about this story and the history of it though.

I think it's rather dirty of America to decide to be neutral on this when America was content to bring the British into the BS oil wars and then not back Britain on the very same sticky subject.

I don't really know what's right or wrong here. I feel for the islanders but who is to say they wouldn't be drilling for oil there themselves if they'd known or had the ability. It's still a part of the British empire so I'm guessing it's legally Britain's to pillage, rightly or wrongly. I admit I don't know all that much about this story and the history of it though.

Click to expand...

it's the Falkland Island's government that has brought in the oil companies and who will gain the oil receipts from any profits generated. However, there has been considerable bias towards companies from the Anglosphere in who is being permitted to carry out exploration. All but one are British, the other being Australia's BHP Billiton. The argument from Buenos Aires is that the islands' legislature is illegitimate and therefore does not have the authority to issue licenses for the exploitation of Argentine resources, and that it is only the presence of 1000 British troops, an RAF base and some Royal Navy ships that maintains the illegitimate government's control over the territory.

I recall with humor, I think it was April 1982, when Maggie Thatcher was prosecuting the war therein, I use to listen with anticipation and laugh with abandon when news announcers would refer to it as the "Falklands War," or "that Falklands War," putting deliberate emphasis upon the mispronunciation, which sounded singularly appropriate but at the time horribly offensive... the idea of the Argentinians and the Brits were actually battling it out over an island, with the sinking of the Belgrano and the HMS Sheffield has the air of a Premier League pitch scrimmage rather than a violent war to outside observers!

I recall with humor, I think it was April 1982, when Maggie Thatcher was prosecuting the war therein, I use to listen with anticipation and laugh with abandon when news announcers would refer to it as the "Falklands War," or "that Falklands War," putting deliberate emphasis upon the mispronunciation, which sounded singularly appropriate but at the time horribly offensive... the idea of the Argentinians and the Brits were actually battling it out over an island, with the sinking of the Belgrano and the HMS Sheffield has the air of a Premier League pitch scrimmage rather than a violent war to outside observers!

Click to expand...

See post #7. It's more about control of maritime resources than some forsaken windswept sheep pasture.

How did Britain gain control of the islands in the first place? If it was legal war and they won then they are Britains.

Click to expand...

It goes something like this.

They were originally a French colony, with Britain claiming the uninhabited West Falkland. Then the French left and the Spanish moved into Port Louis, the old French settlement on East Falkland. However, when the River Plate colonies (the forerunners of Uruguay, Bolivia and Argentina) revolted from Spain the Spanish left. The next few years saw a number of different temporary settlements set up by whalers and the like, before an Argentine colony was commissioned. Unfortunately that eventually descended into piracy and they got turfed out by the US Navy, at which point Britain decided to press their earlier claim and founded Stanley, Darwin and Fitzroy on East Falkland. The islands have been administered as a British territory ever since, either directly or as a British Overseas Territory as today.

They were originally a French colony, with Britain claiming the uninhabited West Falkland. Then the French left and the Spanish moved into Port Louis, the old French settlement on East Falkland. However, when the River Plate colonies (the forerunners of Uruguay, Bolivia and Argentina) revolted from Spain the Spanish left. The next few years saw a number of different temporary settlements set up by whalers and the like, before an Argentine colony was commissioned. Unfortunately that eventually descended into piracy and they got turfed out by the US Navy, at which point Britain decided to press their earlier claim and founded Stanley, Darwin and Fitzroy on East Falkland. The islands have been administered as a British territory ever since, either directly or as a British Overseas Territory as today.

Prior to the French there were no inhabitants.

Click to expand...

Sounds like things were pretty chaotic until the British came in. I'd say they're British.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.